Princesss fined $40 million for pollution

True. But all one has to do is a small amount of research to find that these other companies that you don't think lied or broke the law actually did. I admit that I have an advantage here because that is what I do for a living and I am immersed in the multi-billion dollar world of hazardous waste clean-ups and the funding for same. But I can assure you that what Princess was fined for is by no means unique or rare. But for whatever reason, (I guess because this is a Princess Board), people have chosen to hold this company to a higher standard than other companies whose goods and services we all use on a daily basis. While confidentiality agreements prohibit me from going into detail, here is just one example pulled off of the EPA's public website. Anyone who is cancelling cruises and boycotting Princess should think about this before stepping foot in another WalMart.

 

Wal-Mart Pays Over $81 Million After Pleading Guilty to Criminal and Civil Violations Affecting Water Quality, Ensuring Proper Handling of Hazardous Wastes and Pesticides

 

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pleaded guilty in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States. It also pleaded guilty in Kansas City, Mo., to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country. As part of a plea agreement filed in California, Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay a $40 million criminal fine and an additional $20 million that will fund various community service projects, including opening a $6 million Retail Compliance Assistance Center that will help retail stores across the nation learn how to properly handle hazardous waste.

 

Pursuant to the plea agreement filed in Missouri Wal-Mart agreed to pay a criminal fine of $11 million and to pay another $3 million to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which will go to that agency’s Hazardous Waste Program and will be used to fund further inspections and education on pesticide regulations for regulators, the regulated community and the public. For more information read the complete case summaries - California or Missouri.

It is the Princess board. I surmise from your post and your other posts along the same theme (over and over and over again) that you have a financial interest in Princess or you receive monies or benefits from them. You seem overly concerned in your posts about others personal decisions to cruise or not cruise Princess in the future.

But when I do know about it, it's not hypocritical to a) have an emotional response and b) have that response change my actions.

No, it is not hypocritical for one to have an emotional response or have that response change one's actions. What is hypocritical is to allow that response to vary significantly. Not saying that you are doing this, but I guarantee that there are people posting here who will cancel their Princess cruises as the result of a $40 million fine and on the same day shop at Wal-Mart which recently paid an identical $40 million fine. There are ways to rationalize and justify such a variance in behavior, (a cruise is a luxury expense and Wal-Mart is a necessary expense), but no matter the explanation, boycotting one company while supporting the other qualifies under some form of the definition of hypocrisy. It just does.

It is the Princess board. I surmise from your post and your other posts along the same theme (over and over and over again) that you have a financial interest in Princess or you receive monies or benefits from them. You seem overly concerned in your posts about others personal decisions to cruise or not cruise Princess in the future.

That's uncalled for. I've seen nothing from JimmyVWine except attempts to place this into perspective.

Should we consider all those who have advocated boycotting Princess of "shorting" Carnival stock?

It is the Princess board. I surmise from your post and your other posts along the same theme (over and over and over again) that you have a financial interest in Princess or you receive monies or benefits from them. You seem overly concerned in your posts about others personal decisions to cruise or not cruise Princess in the future.

None whatsoever. Not even a Carnival shareholder. My point is not a difficult one. It is fine if people are outraged about environmental violations. They should be. But moral outrage should not be used selectively, and if it is, then one has to be willing to accept living with some level of hypocrisy, because that is the essence of the definition of the word. If one is willing to purchase Wal-Mart's products then one should be willing to purchase Princess' products and vice versa. If both companies paid identical $40 million fines, then what else would you call boycotting one company while simultaneously supporting the other?

That's uncalled for. I've seen nothing from JimmyVWine except attempts to place this into perspective.

Thank you, and yes..."perspective" is the exact right word.

but no matter the explanation, boycotting one company while supporting the other qualifies under some form of the definition of hypocrisy. It just does.

I agree with you, IF they know about it. Ignorance is bliss (although ignorance is harder to come by than most people realize).

The fact that you know about it doesn't ensure that someone else does.

Thank you, and yes..."perspective" is the exact right word.

You are not putting it in perspective. You are attempting to obfuscate Princess's bad act by saying they all do it. You can make excuses for Princess all you want. I don't and won't. Princess acted like scumbags. They are the ones who got caught. I am outraged at what they got caught doing. So Princess is going to lose some business from me. Not forever but they are immediately. You have your ethics and I have mine.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you, and yes..."perspective" is the exact right word.

The repetitive posts on the same theme is not putting things into perspective, it's having an agenda...

but no matter the explanation, boycotting one company while supporting the other qualifies under some form of the definition of hypocrisy. It just does.

You have no idea who I patronize or don't patronize, this is a Princess board afterall. Call me a "hypocrite" if you like, but I am still boycotting Princess.

I don't know that this is a "corporate machinations". It appears that personnel on one ship decided to save some money by discharging waste rather than pay for it's proper disposal. It would be necessary to demonstrate that these lower level personnel were responding to corporate directions to prove "corporate machinations".

 

I suspect that each ship is treated as an accounting center where revenues and expenses are consolidated into a profit and loss statement. I also suspect that bonus are paid based upon these profits/losses. IMHO, ships personnel saw an opportunity to reduce expenses and increase their bonus. I wouldn't consider that "corporate machinations".

 

I wouldn't consider this right or proper but I've seen too many similar instances to single out a corporation for the actions of their subordinates. I would suggest that the corporation should monitor revenues and expenses and follow-up when something seems out of the ordinary, ie, one ships expenses for pollution abatement are well below average.

While you are correct that each vessel is a separate accounting center, no shipboard crew or staff receive bonuses for cost cutting/revenue enhancement. They are paid per their employment "articles" (contract), a shipping article in fact being a personal contract between the individual crew and the Captain.

Where the performance bonuses come into play, is at the fleet management level. There will be a "technical superintendent" who is responsible for the overall technical (maintenance, repair) of a group of ships. There will be a "marine superintendent" or "fleet manager" who will do the same for vessel operations (port logistics, etc), and there will be the corporate hotel department that oversees the hotel operations for a group of ships. Then these "group" managers report to the overall Technical, Marine, or Hotel Operations Director or VP.

As I've stated before, having been in the exact same situation the engineers on the Princess ships found themselves, there is pressure from above, at the corporate headquarters to cut costs, or its your job. As I've said repeatedly, and again, I speak from personal experience, it takes a lot to override your family's well being to do what's right. This is why Princess has admitted that their "fleet operations management" team has been reorganized and new leadership installed. Would you scrap executives because of what the officers on the ship, who by their marine licenses are fiscally responsible for their actions, did or did not do?

More details on Princess magic pipes!: http://maritime-executive.com/article/princess-makes-pollution-history

Sent from my iPad using Forums

While you are correct that each vessel is a separate accounting center, no shipboard crew or staff receive bonuses for cost cutting/revenue enhancement. They are paid per their employment "articles" (contract), a shipping article in fact being a personal contract between the individual crew and the Captain.

 

Where the performance bonuses come into play, is at the fleet management level. There will be a "technical superintendent" who is responsible for the overall technical (maintenance, repair) of a group of ships. There will be a "marine superintendent" or "fleet manager" who will do the same for vessel operations (port logistics, etc), and there will be the corporate hotel department that oversees the hotel operations for a group of ships. Then these "group" managers report to the overall Technical, Marine, or Hotel Operations Director or VP.

 

As I've stated before, having been in the exact same situation the engineers on the Princess ships found themselves, there is pressure from above, at the corporate headquarters to cut costs, or its your job. As I've said repeatedly, and again, I speak from personal experience, it takes a lot to override your family's well being to do what's right. This is why Princess has admitted that their "fleet operations management" team has been reorganized and new leadership installed. Would you scrap executives because of what the officers on the ship, who by their marine licenses are fiscally responsible for their actions, did or did not do?

I've not seen the contracts so I cannot say for certain, but it would seem proper and possible for the contract to include provisions for bonuses based upon profit.

From the article posted by gymswim:

• A perceived motive for the crimes was financial – the chief engineer that ordered the dumping off the coast of England told subordinate engineers that it cost too much to properly offload the waste in port and that the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense.

• Princess engineers on the Caribbean Princess indicated that the chief engineer responsible for the discharge on August 26, 2013, was known as “broccino corto” (a person with short arms), an Italian expression for a cheap person whose arms are too short to reach his wallet. Some expressed the same opinion of the shore-side superintendent.

to answer your question: "Would you scrap executives because of what the officers on the ship, who by their marine licenses are fiscally responsible for their actions, did or did not do?["

It would be seriously considered when their actions cost the company $40M particularly if it could be shown that they were delinquent in their failure to adequately supervise their subordinates. However, there is a difference in failing to supervise and directing subordinates to take a specific action.

I've not seen the contracts so I cannot say for certain, but it would seem proper and possible for the contract to include provisions for bonuses based upon profit.

 

From the article posted by gymswim:

 

• A perceived motive for the crimes was financial – the chief engineer that ordered the dumping off the coast of England told subordinate engineers that it cost too much to properly offload the waste in port and that the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense.

• Princess engineers on the Caribbean Princess indicated that the chief engineer responsible for the discharge on August 26, 2013, was known as “broccino corto” (a person with short arms), an Italian expression for a cheap person whose arms are too short to reach his wallet. Some expressed the same opinion of the shore-side superintendent.

 

to answer your question: "Would you scrap executives because of what the officers on the ship, who by their marine licenses are fiscally responsible for their actions, did or did not do?["

 

It would be seriously considered when their actions cost the company $40M particularly if it could be shown that they were delinquent in their failure to adequately supervise their subordinates. However, there is a difference in failing to supervise and directing subordinates to take a specific action.

I have seen, and have worked under maritime articles for 40 years. The only agreements I've ever seen that include a financial bonus, are commercial fishing boats, where each crew is assigned a share of the catch.

Notice in the first bullet point you made: "the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense." This is a typical situation in the maritime field, where the ship wants to spend money to keep things running, and the shore staff try to keep the budget under control. This statement does not say to me that the Chief Engineer was looking to gain financially from the dumping, but was looking to keep his boss happy and therefore keep his job.

In your second bullet point, what I have been saying is stated clearly, the superintendent wanted to keep costs down (be cheap), and to keep him happy the Chief Engineer needed to be cheap as well.

In fact, in 40 years at sea, the only financial gain to shipboard officers and crew from bilge water and slops handling, has come from pumping it ashore to contractors, who give the ship a kickback out of the profit the contractor will make charging the shipping line to receive the slops, and then selling the product to an end user.

The repetitive posts on the same theme is not putting things into perspective, it's having an agenda...

If the agenda is to inform people that lots of companies that they hold near and dear to their hearts have paid fines (both civil and criminal) for environmental misconduct and yet they continue to patronize those companies every day, then yes, I agree with you.

I have seen, and have worked under maritime articles for 40 years. The only agreements I've ever seen that include a financial bonus, are commercial fishing boats, where each crew is assigned a share of the catch.

 

Notice in the first bullet point you made: "the shore-side superintendent who he reported to would not want to pay the expense." This is a typical situation in the maritime field, where the ship wants to spend money to keep things running, and the shore staff try to keep the budget under control. This statement does not say to me that the Chief Engineer was looking to gain financially from the dumping, but was looking to keep his boss happy and therefore keep his job.

 

In your second bullet point, what I have been saying is stated clearly, the superintendent wanted to keep costs down (be cheap), and to keep him happy the Chief Engineer needed to be cheap as well.

 

In fact, in 40 years at sea, the only financial gain to shipboard officers and crew from bilge water and slops handling, has come from pumping it ashore to contractors, who give the ship a kickback out of the profit the contractor will make charging the shipping line to receive the slops, and then selling the product to an end user.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. You obviously are more familiar with crew compensation than I. Still, whether the crew did it to earn a bonus or to keep their jobs, the incentive to cheat was there.

I found it interesting that the crew was reported to have run sea water through the system to confuse the reporting system. That may imply that this was a local decision and not dictated by corporate. Of course, it is possible the reporting system may have been monitored by personnel outside of Carnival. I simply don't know.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. You obviously are more familiar with crew compensation than I. Still, whether the crew did it to earn a bonus or to keep their jobs, the incentive to cheat was there.

 

I found it interesting that the crew was reported to have run sea water through the system to confuse the reporting system. That may imply that this was a local decision and not dictated by corporate. Of course, it is possible the reporting system may have been monitored by personnel outside of Carnival. I simply don't know.

The decision directed by corporate was to "make it go away". As I've said before, the standard answer from corporate is "sure, we'll have the slops barge waiting at the next port, along with the new Chief Engineer, who may be able to figure out how to keep from having to pump this ashore". How it was done, of course, was up to the ship. The oil water separator, as its name implies, separates oil from bilge water. That water then exits the oil water separator through an opacity meter calibrated in ppm (and ppm of anything that refracts light, so rust particles, coffee grounds, or paint flakes record as oil). If the water passing the oil content meter is below 15ppm, a valve opens allowing the water to pass overboard. If it is above 15ppm, then the valve diverts the water back to the holding tank, for processing again. What the sea water does, is you introduce fresh, clean sea water into the sampling stream, or the input stream to the oil water separator, so that while you are discharging 5 metric tons of bilge water, according to the amount taken from the holding tank, you actually pumped 15 metric tons through the oil water separator so that the oil content is diluted to meet the 15ppm limit. Now, is this really illegal, since the water that went overboard met the required limit? Who cares where the water came from? It is illegal, in that you are intentionally "defrauding" the oil content meter. It is interesting to note, that if I had 5 metric tons of oily bilge water in my bilge tank, and I purposely drained the fire main into the bilges and pumped that to the holding tank until I had 25 metric tons in the tank, and then was able to process this over the side, this is legal, if not exactly kosher.

One can be outraged at a company for lying about their waste and breaking the law about polluting, and still not be hypocritical about patronizing a company that creates waste but doesn't lie or break the law about it.

 

It's the planned law-breaking and deceit that is most outrageous -- corporate machinations to circumvent the laws.

This point(which I've also expressed) is what apparently seems to be lost on the (it was minor in relation)rationalizers here.

It is the grievous break of ethics that is the real betrayal here. These were not accidental discharges, or even an ignorance of the rules. They were a willful circumventing of the law for years.

Princess touts themselves as environmentally conscious. Apparently not.

The question then must be asked. What other unethical actions is Princess capable of?

 

The question then must be asked. What other unethical actions is Princess capable of?

If you know and have proof, let's hear them.

The question then must be asked. What other unethical actions is Princess capable of?

Agree, it is a matter of trust. If there were an iceberg detected ahead on a north Atlantic TA, would Princess divert to avoid and therefore incur extra costs for fuel and time, or would they proceed dead ahead and take their chances in order to save a few bucks.

And to those who will say, apples and oranges, no it is not. It is all about putting profits ahead of ethics.

If you know and have proof, let's hear them.

Well, here's the Princess' (Carnival Corp. PLC's) Code of Business Conduct and Ethics...

I would encourage reading it in its entirety...though in particular, read page 19 (titled: "Our Commitment to Our World - Protecting Our Environment and Promoting Sustainability"

It is pretty reasonable to deduce that corporations capable of being unethical in certain actions of their business, are capable of being unethical in others.

Safety & Security comes immediately to mind.

Well, here's the Princess' (Carnival Corp. PLC's) Code of Business Conduct and Ethics...

 

I would encourage reading it in its entirety...though in particular, read page 19 (titled: "Our Commitment to Our World - Protecting Our Environment and Promoting Sustainability"

 

It is pretty reasonable to deduce that corporations capable of being unethical in certain actions of their business, are capable of being unethical in others.

 

Safety & Security comes immediately to mind.

Fortunately, you are not a judge and our court system doesn't convict anyone based on pure speculation, unproven assumption and conspiracy theory.

Fortunately, you are not a judge and our court system doesn't convict anyone based on pure speculation, unproven assumption and conspiracy theory.

Yet, I am a consumer and a shareholder and I CAN vote with my wallet. It deserves noting that each person is entitled to their own chosen levels of integrity and scruples.

I choose to put a lot of weight on trust and honesty when I opt to do business with someone. When that trust is breached, only I will decide on how/when/if to forgive the transgressions.

Wal-Mart has been mentioned ITT as a comparison. They are a company that I choose NOT to do business with.

'Price' is only one consideration when deciding to make a purchase. In addition to 'ethics', 'quality of service&materials' and 'commitment to community' also come into play.

Fortunately, you are not a judge and our court system doesn't convict anyone based on pure speculation, unproven assumption and conspiracy theory.

Seven felony convictions are not "pure speculation, unproven assumption and conspiracy theory."

Yet, I am a consumer and a shareholder and I CAN vote with my wallet. .

Carnival stock just hit $52.60 today. Looks like Wall Street and investors love Carnival despite the Princess case. Don't sell too fast now or you are going to miss out on the nice dividends and shareholder OBC.

Carnival stock just hit $52.60 today. Looks like Wall Street and investors love Carnival despite the Princess case. Don't sell too fast now or you are going to miss out on the nice dividends and shareholder OBC.

So I wonder how many that are choosing to "vote with their wallet" have also sold any position they may have had in CCL?